You may or may not agree with that conclusion, but it's a far more plausible view for someone to hold than what you seem to have thought the original poster meant.
You may or may not agree with that conclusion, but it's a far more plausible view for someone to hold than what you seem to have thought the original poster meant.
The commenter actually says exactly that...that the US healthcare system is (in fact) a perfect demonstration of a completely free market.
Saying that something demonstrates the dangers of x by saying that the things that are wrong with it are features of it moving in the direction of x is not the same as saying that the thing is x.
I could say that something nearly catching fire and getting badly scorched is a perfect demonstration of the dangers of fire, but that would not mean that I think that the thing has actually caught fire, it just means that I am using a perfectly normal rhetorical device to describe that I think that the fire is a danger.
"perfect demonstration of the dangers of a completely free market"
You:
"perfect demonstration of a completely free market"
Do you see where the difference is?